Too slick for your budget

HerzogisGod

HerzogisGod

Well-known member
I read somewhere that a film's production should reflect its budget. In other words, when a relatively low budget film attempts big budget production value, the film will ultimately look tacky; trying to make a period piece or a sci-fi thriller with no money etc.

Yet I see these attempts again and again. And the results are, as stated above, tacky and see through.


I'm wondering about solutions to this issue
 
I'd say that certain techniques should be used conservatively. Dolly, jib, steadicam moves can add a ton of production value to a low budget film. But they should be used sparingly so as not to be glaring. I once saw a foreign short that had a jib move in almost every single shot. The director was trying to be slick but came off as cheesy.

Hard to gauge what is too much really. You have to hope your judgement is solid or ask for opinions of your director/DP depending on what role you're playing in the production.
 
Hard to gauge what is too much really. You have to hope your judgement is solid or ask for opinions of your director/DP depending on what role you're playing in the production.
Click to expand...

After working on my first films this summer, the first as 1st AC and the second as DP, I would have to agree with jimpatro. The first was pushed to the point where it looked like the was some sort of budget that was blown on stupid stuff. The second, which I DP'd on, had NO budget, and will end up being better in the end because of this. I run an HVX, we didn't have a 35 adapter, used DIY lights, and planned the shots best we could for the lack of crew (the director and myself almost every shoot). I think it really has a correlation to the acting and writing, what things done during shooting, that makes it tacky... We had an awsome DP, he knew his stuff, great equipment. The shots looked great, shot design, blocking, lighting, all really good. But the talent was awful, the director was clueless to what pickups I was incharge of pointing out to the DP if he missed them, and the producer thought that being a producer meant being the director. So that production was painful to say the least....
 
HerzogisGod said:
I read somewhere that a film's production should reflect its budget. In other words, when a relatively low budget film attempts big budget production value, the film will ultimately look tacky; trying to make a period piece or a sci-fi thriller with no money etc.

Yet I see these attempts again and again. And the results are, as stated above, tacky and see through.


I'm wondering about solutions to this issue
Click to expand...

Yes and no. It depends on the skills of the filmmaker. If you research and know how to light and move the camera and do the special effects and are willing to put the time into it, it can look really good. People always think I've spent much more than I did. I shot "The 4th Beast" for $800 and the first guy who reviewed it said he didn't know it was shot that cheaply. And it wasn't great looking film, but we had a lot of locations and good action scenes which made people think we were working with at least a few thousand dollars. In fact the shoot out in Beast was better than the one in Wages if you ask me. It was more dynamic.

-Nate
 
HerzogisGod said:
I'm wondering about solutions to this issue
Click to expand...

There is no simple answer to your question but the problem is apparent. The people that do such projects are either hobbyists or have to work with people with low/no experience in the business.

-People have very low end understanding of the technology they are using
-Their grasp of cinematography or language of film is limited.
-Their visual and technical experience is mostly based on conjecture.
-They don't have access to higher end equipment or operators.
-They don't know how to run a set or have never seen a real film set.
-Too many people attempt too many things on set they don't really understand.
-The support and chain of command structure doesn't really work.
-They don't understand post production or editing.
-They have limited access to experienced actors or crew members.....

and the list goes on and on and on....

I think these are SOME of the reasons that lead to "tacky" results.

My solutions is practice, practice and practice more. If you dont think you've got it down, dont put it on your film but keep practicing.

Just my 2c
 
Everyone who has posted or read this thread should read this article:

Seth Godin's "Dead Zone of Slick"

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/08/the-dead-zone-o.html

This is at the philosophical heart of the 'let the film reflect the budget' mentality. This guy is a genius and has changed my perspective on movie making a few times. Please note, he's a marketing guru, but I've found his insight applicable to storytelling and communicating appropriately with your audience. (those are two very different things.)
 
That above link is a bit simplified, but the basic idea is about right. The problem isn't trying to be slick, or to do well; the problem is failing at it. In film, this means a filmmaker needs to realize their resources and what they can do well, not just what they can do, and then must use those tools to get the point across. The first post in this thread is too simple as well. You can be slick without a budget, it's easy; just don't do anything expensive.
 
I don't think it's necessarily budget - it's focusing more on achieving some canned look/effect than watching what you're doing.

A guy asks here a few weeks back about how to create a bright blue swimming pool night time bg - when he doesn't have a pool with underwater lights.

He gets many replies all to do with lights and reflectors etc. You know none of them are going to work - it's gonna look tacky. But after hours of messing around you come up with something that doesn't look too tacky and go with it.

A more productive approach would be to use some other prop to achieve the same effect - a large window, a backlit canopy - whatever.
 
Planning, planning, planning.

You can frequently achieve results that look exponentially pricier than your actual budget but it will not happen by accident and it will not happen on-the-fly.
 
Cliff Wildman said:
This guy is a genius
Click to expand...
"A big car on a wet frozen lake goes nowhere. No traction, no motion." According to dictionary.com, traction is "the adhesive friction of a body on some surface", that is, the process of moving that is impossible without friction. Yet further in his entry he says that friction is a problem for traction. Artsy people must stay away from physics and from lame parables. Just deliver your point, without allegories, for crissake.
 
I came up with a saying a few months ago after watching a poorly made indy film:

It's not hard to make a bad movie. You just need higher ambitions than your budget and the bad movie will make itself.
 
Cranky said:
"A big car on a wet frozen lake goes nowhere. No traction, no motion." According to dictionary.com, traction is "the adhesive friction of a body on some surface", that is, the process of moving that is impossible without friction. Yet further in his entry he says that friction is a problem for traction. Artsy people must stay away from physics and from lame parables. Just deliver your point, without allegories, for crissake.
Click to expand...

ps: :cheesy:NERD ALERT :cheesy:

nerd200.jpg
 
My dad told me about something he learned while in the navy. They called it "The Seven P Principle"...

Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
 
Brickhouse Media said:
My dad told me about something he learned while in the navy. They called it "The Seven P Principle"...

Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.
Click to expand...


I like that. I'm usually the one on the smaller productions that is calling for more planning and pre-production.
 
I think people just need to know their gear, know the rules and when to break them, know their limitations, be resourceful and creative, and develop a general sense of when and why to do a shot a certain way. A dolly or steadicam should be tools that serve the narrative or tell us something about the characters and their environment, not to show off production values or look "big time."

I was recently DPing for a production where one of the producers thought it would look cool to add a contrazoom. It's a dramatic piece, and the scene is a tender moment, where a character visits his sick mother in a nursing home. A contrazoom?! That has a certain energy about it that suggests suspense and dark epiphanies or whatever. It just wouldn't fit the context, so I flat out refused. It wouldn't have been appropriate for the scene, no matter how "cool" it might look. Ultimately, it would have made the film feel cheesy.

I generally avoid too much camera movement anyway. Not only is it expensive, I feel like it is overused. Master filmmakers move the camera only when the time is right, not all of the time.
 
Last edited:
HerzogisGod said:
I'm wondering about solutions to this issue
Click to expand...
Raise more money, or try to do something different (i.e., "blair witch" or "Napoleon Dynamite" or "Pi"). But if you try to make a $300,000,000 looking film on $3,000 -- it ain't gonna work.

And yes, I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular stance, but that doesn't change the underlying truth of it.
 
jwing said:
I think people just need to know their gear, know the rules and when to break them, know their limitations, be resourceful and creative, and develop a general sense of when and why to do a shot a certain way. A dolly or steadicam should be tools that serve the narrative or tell us something about the characters and their environment, not to show off production values or look "big time."

I was recently DPing for a production where one of the producers thought it would look cool to add a contrazoom. It's a dramatic piece, and the scene is a tender moment, where a character visits his sick mother in a nursing home. A contrazoom?! That has a certain energy about it that suggests suspense and dark epiphanies or whatever. It just wouldn't fit the context, so I flat out refused. It wouldn't have been appropriate for the scene, no matter how "cool" it might look. Ultimately, it would have made the film feel cheesy.

I generally avoid too much camera movement anyway. Not only is it expensive, I feel like it is overused. Master filmmakers move the camera only when the time is right, not all of the time.
Click to expand...

What was the director's stance? The director should have final say, not the DP.
 
jimpatro said:
What was the director's stance? The director should have final say, not the DP.
Click to expand...

True. But in this case, the director and I share very similar tastes and values. The director said the same thing as me--she was within earshot. The guy who said it is more of an actor turned producer, who likes to make everything over-the-top and "cool" whenever he can. He gets excited and doesn't really think about these things. Every set always has one of these types!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top